[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <Q8w1Cf3Z9KFv at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: 

> > Seriously, "socialism", when not used for propaganda, generally refers 
> > to government ownership of "big" things.  That is the exception in the 
> > US and the rule in many other countries.
> 
>    Socialism means the government owns things, operates things, and 
>    provides things, under the excuse that would be better for society.

More precisely, it also owns such things which are elsewhere run at a
profit.  Government-owned things in the US are usually things which
wouldn't make a profit if they were privatized. 

>    Social Security is a government operated program which provides
>    payments to senior citizens (and a few others).  Along the way
>    some of the money you earned became governement owned (a tax) for the
>    purpose of that program.

A good example of something one couldn't run at a profit.

>    A pure socialist state would own everything, operate everything,
>    and provide everything.  Most 1st world governments own some things,
>    operate some things, and provide some things.  When they own and
>    operate a program for the purpose of providing income, that's a 
>    socialist program, even if it's only a minority of things.

Some would say that socialism involves only government ownership of 
things "too big to fail" while communism would entail government 
ownership of everything.

If this is confusing, look at the various meanings (some almost 
diametrically opposed) of the term "liberal" in various countries today 
and how they have changed in the past 200 years or so.